INFID to discuss land rights<\/p>\n
By Arief Budiman<\/p>\n
SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): Through the process of
\nglobalization, the world is becoming one unit. Boundaries among
\nstates have become more permeable. It is true interaction among
\ncountries has existed for a very long time. But now it has
\nintensified. No country can avoid intervention in its internal
\naffairs. To interact is not a choice for a country anymore, it is
\nnow compulsory, dictated by global structures.<\/p>\n
Interaction among countries exists both on state and civil
\nlevels. Interaction among states takes place in all sectors,
\neconomic, political, military, and cultural. The United Nations
\nis the highest embodiment of this international interaction.<\/p>\n
Interaction among civil societies also exists, for example
\namong political parties of the same stripe, among people of the
\nsame profession, among people with the same belief and religion.
\nHowever, in the last ten years, a new kind of international
\ninteraction has emerged: among NGOs (Non-Government
\nOrganizations). Unlike its predecessors, the international
\ninteraction of NGOs is not based on any ideology or belief, but
\non concrete issues.<\/p>\n
The birth of this international cooperation between NGOs has
\ngiven more power to the people's struggle to defend their rights
\nagainst the state. This struggle is not limited by national
\nboundaries but has expanded and moved to the international arena.<\/p>\n
Thus human rights violations in one country are no longer just
\nthe affair of the people and the state of the respective country
\nalone, but have become internationalized politically.<\/p>\n
The state now has to respond in international arenas to defend
\nits policies. This is altogether more difficult than at home.
\nFor instance, the Chinese government is still smarting from the
\ninternational revulsion at its brutal handling of the Tianemen
\nSquare incident. This has affected China not only morally and
\npolitically, but also economically. It is likely the Chinese
\ngovernment would now think hard before launching similar
\nrepressive measures in the future.<\/p>\n
For Indonesia, the international cooperation of NGOs has
\nmanifested itself in the creation of the International NGO Forum
\nfor Indonesian Development (INFID) which will have its tenth
\nannual meeting in Canberra, Australia, from April 26 to 28, 1996.
\nUnder the previous name of INGI (International NGO forum on
\nIndonesia), INFID has become the international lobby for the
\nIndonesian people's struggle as represented by various NGOs in
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
INGI was established in 1985 with the idea of giving an
\n\"alternative\" to the report prepared by the World Bank for IGGI
\n(Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia). As we know, IGGI that
\nwas created just after the birth of the New Order Government in
\nthe second half of the 1960s, as a consortium of the rich
\ncountries to help the Indonesian government overcome its economic
\nproblems.<\/p>\n
Initiated especially by the World Bank, the U.S. and Japan,
\nIGGI grouped many other countries in western Europe and
\nAustralia. Headed by the Dutch Minister of Development Aid, IGGI
\nhad its annual meeting in The Hague in the Netherlands. However,
\ndue to a spat between Indonesia and the Netherlands over the
\nissues of Human Rights, and East Timor, IGGI was dissolved in
\n1992. It was replaced by the CGI (Consultative Group on
\nIndonesia), led by the World Bank and meeting every year in
\nParis. The Netherlands is now only a common member of the CGI.<\/p>\n
In the annual meeting, as the defunct IGGI used to, the CGI
\npresented a report prepared by the World Bank on the progress of
\nIndonesian development. This report is based mainly on
\nmacroeconomic indicators, and sees things from the state's point
\nof view. Human Rights, environmental damage and the fate of the
\ncommon people victimized by development projects have rarely
\nappeared in the reports. When they do appear, they are treated as
\nthe unavoidable cost of development.<\/p>\n
In 1985 several Indonesian NGOs working together with some
\nDutch NGOs set up INGI with the task of reporting the
\nimplementation of development policies from the people's point of
\nview.<\/p>\n
Their concerns are: What are the impacts of the construction
\nof a big dam on the people? What impact did the family planning
\npolicy financed by the World Bank have on the common people? How
\nabout transmigration? Over the years many development projects
\nthat are considered successful by the World Bank, are evaluated
\ndifferently in the report made by the Indonesian NGOs in the INGI
\nforum. INGI collects the reports directly from NGOs that work at
\ngrass roots level with the people affected.<\/p>\n
One of the most notorious cases was the construction of the
\nKedung Ombo Dam in Central Java. The dam may be useful for the
\neconomic development of the country, but not for the tens of
\nthousand peasants that were driven out from their productive
\nlands. Many of them were intimidated by security forces when they
\ndemanded adequate compensation for their land.<\/p>\n
INGI, and later INFID, was joined by many other NGOs from
\ncountries of IGGI members, such as Germany, the U.S., Canada,
\nAustralia, Japan and others. These NGOs then lobby their own
\ngovernments so that economic aid from these countries will not be
\nharmful for the people at the grass root level. In this sense,
\nINGI\/INFID have been instrumental in improving the quality of
\ndevelopment aid.<\/p>\n
However, the Indonesian government is not happy with the
\nexistence of INGI\/INFID. During INGI's advocacy on the Kedung
\nOmbo Dam case, INGI's leaders were summoned several times by
\nState Secretary Moerdiono. They were told that INGI had to
\nconsider the national interest. Patriotism was also brought up,
\nalong the lines of: never say bad things about your own country
\nabroad. So far, INGI has been consistent. It maintains that
\nINGI's advocacy for the common people is in the national
\ninterest. INGI has rejected the slogan of \"my country right or
\nwrong.\" The right slogan is \"right or wrong is right or wrong.\"<\/p>\n
Why doesn't the Indonesian government ban INFID? In my
\nopinion, the government is clever enough to know that banning
\nINFID will create more problems than it solves. The NGOs of many
\ncountries, members of INFID, would lobby their respective
\ngovernments, and it is likely that this would have a negative
\nimpact on the relationships between Indonesia and these
\ncountries.<\/p>\n
We all know that Indonesia still badly needs financial aid
\nfrom friendly foreign countries. What we are witnessing here now
\nis the increasing bargaining power of the civil society vis-a-vis
\nthe state through the process of increasing international
\ncooperation among civil societies.<\/p>\n
At the coming conference in Canberra at the end of this month
\nINFID will be discussing land problems. This is a very
\nsignificant issue. Land has been quoted recently as one of the
\nmost controversial issues in Indonesia, and one that underlies
\nmuch of the current social unrest.<\/p>\n
This has something to do with the policy of the New Order
\nGovernment.<\/p>\n
The previous government under Sukarno saw land as the means of
\nsurvival for the masses in the country. So public policies were
\naimed at giving land to the people. The Agrarian Law was
\nlegislated during this time, in 1960. However, the New Order
\ngovernment has slowly changed this policy. Now, land has to be
\nused to sustained high economic growth. Land has to be exploited
\nby those entrepreneurs who can add value. Public policies are now
\ngeared toward this new goal.<\/p>\n
Thus we see a lot of legislation emanating from the New Order
\ngovernment making it easier for businesspeople to buy or rent
\nland. If necessary, people have to sacrifice their land to the
\nstate, if it considers that the land will be used in the \"public
\ninterest.\" (See: Presidential Decision No.55\/1993 entitled \"Land
\nAvailability for Development Implementers for the Public Good\").<\/p>\n
As so often happens with legislation in Indonesia, this
\nloophole has been abused. So although this regulation could only
\nbe used by the government, and the people have to be compensated
\nbased on the current market price for their land, in practice the
\nprivate sector can be \"helped\" by government officials to lay
\ntheir hands on land and pay derisory compensation nowhere near
\ncurrent market prices.<\/p>\n
Advocacy on land issues by some NGOs has created conflict
\nbetween the NGOs and the security forces. Now these issues, with
\nother issues such as like Indonesian labor in Malaysia, will be
\nbrought to international attention through INFID. It is still
\nunclear whether this will make the people's position stronger in
\nthe defense of their rights to the land. In Indonesia the state
\nis still much stronger than civil society.<\/p>\n
The writer is a researcher and sociologist living in Salatiga.<\/p>\n
Window: Thus human rights violations in one country are no longer
\njust the affair of the people and the state of the respective
\ncountry alone, but have become internationalized politically.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/infid-to-discuss-land-rights-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}